Prospectus Idol

I just don't see the point of this, unless it's that a BP writer is expected to do media appearances, and even if, these were all awkward, stilted and forced. I'm unwilling to judge any of these guys on this, and that makes me wonder what I'd have thought if one had hit a home run? Would a facility for radio style interviews make him a more qualified BP writer? I could see using this format as a tie-breaker, but not here.

I could vote for all 4, or for none, and be statistically irrelevant. I chose none.

Gotta love the swimsuit competition...

Special thanks to Richard Bergstrom for helping with the transcription.

Yes, I think this skill is critically important and is a big differentiator between a writer that can grow an audience and one that is stuck. I think if Bill James were able to approximate a good media interview, sabermetrics would have been pushed ahead by a decade. Rob Neyer wasn't given much opportunity to do them over the first decade of his career, but has been solid since getting the opportunity. In fact, find me a major writer that can't do radio *and* television.

I'm really surprised by the format this week, but I think it's a great idea.

Aside from the poor format choice that others have alluded to, I just want to say how inappropriate I think it is that a reader who isn't employed by BP did the transcripts for this round.

This is even more disturbing by the fact that transcribing is something into which people CAN insert bias, with their choice of what to include/exclude, and even punctuation. I found it interesting, for example, how every little sound (no matter how insignificant) of Matt Swartz's interview was amplified as some sort of unprofessional interjection, while Ken Funck's somewhat distracting...sounds were left out of his transcript. Richard Bergstrom even commented that Tim Kniker's interview sounded better than it read, but he's the one who wrote it, so why didn't he fix that?

The bias reflected in the transcription was confirmed by Richard Bergstrom's subsequent comments on each of the articles.

I understand that BP writers are expected to do media and do it well. Baseball players also have to have some skills in dealing with the media. But baseball players are not selected on that basis. Presumably they are taught some of these skills once they have demonstrated the baseball skills needed to contribute to the organization. I am not sure why it would be different with potential BP writers.

I love that you're giving us transcripts.

Since I NEVER listen to your radio stuff or watch your videos - I vastly prefer written material - all I would ever care about is the transcripts, so it's the transcripts on which I'd be basing my voting.

And I still wish BPR transcripts were available.

I don't believe I will vote this week, as I don't feel this has anything to do with why I subscribe to BP and do not wish to pass judgment on the contestants in an irrelevant exercise.

It seems every week people are upset with the topic choice or upset with the BP Idol format. Some of those perceptions are justified. Yet, any kind of contest has to have some kind of rules and structure and there will always be people who disagree with a particular rule or structure.

Supposedly, this contest has attracted some attention. I imagine that whoever wins will be doing interviews. Beyond that, it appears the job of a BP staff member includes doing interviews, podcasts, etc. I can see, then, why BP would want a radio component and have a winner who can make a good impression on readers and listeners. BP might lose some integrity if the eventual winner has to avoid radio interviews because they do not come across well "on air", etc.

No Hit List this week from me. Though it's doable, it's hard for me to pick a clear #1/#2/#3/#4 and since I did the transcription, I don't want to stir up more bias controversy.

I apologize to the contestants, but I just can't sit through reading these transcripts. It's just so damn boring. No one will get my vote this week, but that's not a reflection on anyone's talents, just that I hate this week's format and I can't really judge.

Having now listened to all four audios and then perused the comments here on the main page and for each contestant, I'm equal parts amused/annoyed at the BP staff and the bulk of the respondents.

For the former, you come off sounding a bit supercilious in your critiques of the interviewees' style, while for the latter - "It is what it is" - to abuse a phrase quite in vogue these days, so choose to rate the contestants or don't, but please refrain from going on about the appropriateness of the topic/format/medium.

I found all four of the interviews interesting and none of them so awkward as to be unpleasant. I have a clear #1/#2/#3/#4, but that said, the "letter grades" range from an "A" to a "B-", so all four get a thumbs-up this week.

So I ask - what is the threshold for elimination? If all four of the contestants receive roughly the same number and percentage of votes will they all survive until next week? What if the difference between the bottom two is statistically insignificant?

One more thing - I think Mike's interviews deserve a round of applause from all of us, both for the effort he put into his research and the enthusiasm he brought to the mic (pun intended, for those of you who remember REBOOT).

I've thought about this a lot over the last week. Each author brings something great to the table, and each has other strengths as well. I guess if I was to summarize...

If I want to see new angles on existing topics, I like Matt the most.

If I want to understand completely new topics, I like Tim the most.

If I want to get a rigorous, accurate information on existing topics, I like Brian the most.

If I want to be entertained and surprised, I like Ken the most.

Hire 'em all (and previous finalists), though continue the contest for a cash prize and bragging rights.